And yet, small gummit types never seem to think about stuff like that when there's plenty of money to go around, or when it's time to start another war, or when some boondoggle defense budget item is on the chopping block, do they?

There have been plenty of fiscal conservatives (GOP and Democrat) who have fought for smaller government in good times. That includes wasteful military spending. It's not my fault that you can't distinguish between fiscal conservatives and libertarians, and neo-conservatives and the military complex. And all of the above exist in both parties.

But hey! All them Republicans look alike!

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Then, it's all about cutting taxes and keeping America strong and making the world safe for democracy. And cutting taxes.

When the government thinks it's got "plenty of money to go around" it's always a perfect time to cut taxes. That even includes times when the country has run up a huge debt, since the wretches clearly aren't going to pay down the debt anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

It's only when the shit hits the fan that we start hearing wistful thoughts about how a bunch of money might be better spent.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're telling me that my country is being blackmailed into giving three billion dollars because Americans don't realize the auto sector as we know it is over, and I should just sit back and drink the Kool Aid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Have you ever been on these forums agitating against the horror of dropping 60 billion on an utterly worthless missile defense program?

No, I haven't. I don't know much about the military and I'm happy to join any chorus over wasteful military spending. But for a system that is said to not work properly and is "utterly worthless", Russia seems fairly agitated over its very existence.

I don't know much about the military and I'm happy to join any chorus over wasteful military spending. But for a system that is said to not work properly and is "utterly worthless", Russia seems fairly agitated over its very existence.

Well I do know this about the Navy.

Ant that is that shipbuilding in the good old USofA would be nonexistent if it weren't for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marines and even the U.S. Army (lighterage).

I'm talking about real ships not sailboats not motorboats not yachts.

A continued shipbuilding capacity has always been in our national interests, and it will be for as long as there is the USofA. That's an implicit given.

So then, it directly follows that a large domestic vehicle making capacity is also in our national interests.

Same goes for our domestic aircraft industries.

D'oh! D'oh! D'oh!

Can you even try to think outside the box?

You can take that one to the bank, as spoken to you from a true American.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

There have been plenty of fiscal conservatives (GOP and Democrat) who have fought for smaller government in good times. That includes wasteful military spending. It's not my fault that you can't distinguish between fiscal conservatives and libertarians, and neo-conservatives and the military complex. And all of the above exist in both parties.

But hey! All them Republicans look alike!

When the government thinks it's got "plenty of money to go around" it's always a perfect time to cut taxes. That even includes times when the country has run up a huge debt, since the wretches clearly aren't going to pay down the debt anyway.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're telling me that my country is being blackmailed into giving three billion dollars because Americans don't realize the auto sector as we know it is over, and I should just sit back and drink the Kool Aid?

No, I haven't. I don't know much about the military and I'm happy to join any chorus over wasteful military spending. But for a system that is said to not work properly and is "utterly worthless", Russia seems fairly agitated over its very existence.

Yeah. Except you're suggesting we turn our minds to how lovely it would be to build some fine educational institutions with the money we're wasting on keeping those loathsome auto workers employed. Given your general hostility to government spending of all types, I find this newfound affection for what might have been unconvincing.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

This is untrue. I advocate smaller, limited government to be sure, but no-one has ever confused me for a libertarian. I fully believe the government has a mandate to provide certain public conveniences like roads, bridges, large-scale health, education, police and military infrastructure.

It's when the government start shelling out billions for tv and radio empires, funding professional sports teams, opera houses, convention centres and such* that things go badly wrong.

The government has morphed into a dragon with 100 heads. Fighting that does not mean one thinks that the government cannot build universities. Considering the alternatives that are being proposed, it is the only sane option.

Like I've already stated earlier is there anyone here who can challenge me intellectually?

Seriously?

Aside from your hilarious pretensions of grandeur, have you not noticed that the nature of warfare has changed somewhat since the 50's?

Even if it had not, building smaller vehicles does not mean we lose the ability to design large ones.

If we did engage in a large-scale worldwide military buildup again, civilian cars would be pulled off the lines and military-grade vehicles built instead. All that would be needed is for someone to keep the larger designs backed up on a Drobo.

Aside from your hilarious pretensions of grandeur, have you not noticed that the nature of warfare has changed somewhat since the 50's?

Even if it had not, building smaller vehicles does not mean we lose the ability to design large ones.

If we did engage in a large-scale worldwide military buildup again, civilian cars would be pulled off the lines and military-grade vehicles built instead. All that would be needed is for someone to keep the larger designs backed up on a Drobo.

Everything you've stated above has been already implicitly implied (i. e. these are all a priori given).

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

That is a crock. First of all, the chapter 11 reorg would probably be over in a matter of weeks, and second of all - to get people to buy cars all they have to do is start a trust that will pay for warentee work even if the company gets liquidated.

FEWER people will get laid off with a bankruptcy, because the labor contracts will be dead and those people will be paid less, and also because the huge debt burden will have been lifted.

The unions want to continue with high pay and benefits, and since that makes the companies uncompetitive, they want government subsidies in order to keep living high on the hog. i.e. they want to tax you so that the government can put supplemental pay into auto worker's pockets.

We dont want to dump a million people into the shit during an economic crisis and create a sea of poverty and crime in large cities.

If that means $30 billion is spent to delay the inevitable for a while - then so be it. Those car companies are going to have to radically change if they want to stay alive.

Of course, paying $30 billion for people to twiddle thier thumbs for a year - is exactly the same as dumping $30 billion into the economy - because these people will spend that money.

Unlike giving $30 billion to a bank who hoards it and makes the problem worse.

As far as im concerned personally, I would shut them all tomorrow. Afterall, this is not my country, not my problem, and I (and the Euro region) would actually benefit from their closure. It would also help contribute to the inevitable decline of American power and influence and punish a million Americans (rightly or wrongly) for electing a psychopathic party for the last decade.

That is a crock. First of all, the chapter 11 reorg would probably be over in a matter of weeks, and second of all - to get people to buy cars all they have to do is start a trust that will pay for warentee work even if the company gets liquidated.

Prove it with some links TYVM. \

I've never seen a Chapter 11 that took a matter of weeks. All I've ever seen is Chapter 11's that take a matter of years, several years. For instance Kaiser Aluminum immediately comes to mind.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

That is a crock. First of all, the chapter 11 reorg would probably be over in a matter of weeks, and second of all - to get people to buy cars all they have to do is start a trust that will pay for warentee work even if the company gets liquidated.

FEWER people will get laid off with a bankruptcy, because the labor contracts will be dead and those people will be paid less, and also because the huge debt burden will have been lifted.

The unions want to continue with high pay and benefits, and since that makes the companies uncompetitive, they want government subsidies in order to keep living high on the hog. i.e. they want to tax you so that the government can put supplemental pay into auto worker's pockets.

I agree with you on this. The greedy bastards wont' even take a small cut in pay to help save their jobs.

Only problem is the stock market is going to take one hell of a dive if they don't get bailed out.

I think it is time to invest in gold and silver.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson

"As for why negotiations failed Thursday, Corker said the only sticking point was having the UAW agree to be competitive with Honda, Nissan, Toyota and BMW in 2009.

“We wanted a date certain as to when that would occur,” said Corker, noting that other sides agreed to painful concession including unsecured bond holders who agree to take 30 cents on the dollar. “We worked out all the VEBA and retirement (issues.),” said the senator. It got down to a date when the UAW would be competitive.

The UAW is slated to hold a press conference later Friday to discuss the failed negotiations. If the UAW agrees to be competitive in 2009, Corker said he would be willing to go back to the floor to vote on the rescue."

I've never seen a Chapter 11 that took a matter of weeks. All I've ever seen is Chapter 11's that take a matter of years, several years. For instance Kaiser Aluminum immediately comes to mind.

They already have a bankruptcy plan - this bill that failed is basically a bankruptcy that does not affect the unions and does not void out the common stock. The plan already has bondholders being converted to stockholders - when they can force this kind of capital change via legislation, all they need to do is add "and go into chapter 11, voiding the union contracts and voiding the common stock" to the end of the bill, and you have a bankruptcy that would take less than a day.

All the wrangling that extends the length of a normal bankruptcy would be forced out of the way via legislation - it already has been done.

"As for why negotiations failed Thursday, Corker said the only sticking point was having the UAW agree to be competitive with Honda, Nissan, Toyota and BMW in 2009.

We wanted a date certain as to when that would occur, said Corker, noting that other sides agreed to painful concession including unsecured bond holders who agree to take 30 cents on the dollar. We worked out all the VEBA and retirement (issues.), said the senator. It got down to a date when the UAW would be competitive.

The UAW is slated to hold a press conference later Friday to discuss the failed negotiations. If the UAW agrees to be competitive in 2009, Corker said he would be willing to go back to the floor to vote on the rescue."

They agreed to cut wages. That Corker and the GOP rejected the deal because they didn't like the font it was printed with is now on them, not the UAW.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

They agreed to cut wages. That Corker and the GOP rejected the deal because they didn't like the font it was printed with is now on them, not the UAW.

It wasn't the font - that is ridiculous. It was an agreement to cut wages at some undefined time after the end of 2009, and that was not good enough. Saying "I'll cut the wages sometime, when I feel like it" is not a real commitment to cut wages.

Show me some link where they agreed to a specific cut at a specific date.

It wasn't the font - that is ridiculous. It was an agreement to cut wages at some undefined time after the end of 2009, and that was not good enough.

Why not? They agreed to cut their wages.

Quote:

Saying "I'll cut the wages sometime, when I feel like it" is not a real commitment to cut wages.

Why not?

Quote:

Show me some link where they agreed to a specific cut at a specific date.

That would be difficult, considering they didn't agree to do it at a specific date. But they agreed to cut wages, which is what the GOP wanted. You thinking that saying you'll cut wages as part of a massive industry bailout is not a commitment to cutting wages is not the UAW's fault.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

They already have a bankruptcy plan - this bill that failed is basically a bankruptcy that does not affect the unions and does not void out the common stock. The plan already has bondholders being converted to stockholders - when they can force this kind of capital change via legislation, all they need to do is add "and go into chapter 11, voiding the union contracts and voiding the common stock" to the end of the bill, and you have a bankruptcy that would take less than a day.

All the wrangling that extends the length of a normal bankruptcy would be forced out of the way via legislation - it already has been done.

You left out one small detail.

You know like that $14 billion bridge bailout detail. That is only meant as a bridge to like March 2009.

Take less than a day is such a bogus argument, that I don't even know where to begin.

I'll start though by asking for a list of corporations that filed Chapter 11 and we're released by the bankruptcy court and conservatorship in less than a day.

Please confine your list to large manufacturers that entered Chapter 11 and emerged from Chapter 11 solvent and intact as the original companies that entered Chapter 11.

TYVM!

Is this your idea of a joke?

Like that thread started here about invading the country of Africa?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Take less than a day is such a bogus argument, that I don't even know where to begin.

If all the details are worked out ahead of time - a pre-packaged bankruptcy, then there is no conflict. If there is no conflict then why would a bankruptcy take any time at all? It is just paperwork.

The bill proposed was a limited pseudo-bankruptcy. I am just suggesting that it get a little less pseudo. You don't even have to make it a "real bankruptcy", just make the consequences of the bill out to what a bankruptcy would do- cancel the common stock, convert the debt to new stock, cancel the union contracts, set the wages equal to BMW, etc.

If all the details are worked out ahead of time - a pre-packaged bankruptcy, then there is no conflict. If there is no conflict then why would a bankruptcy take any time at all? It is just paperwork.

The bill proposed was a limited pseudo-bankruptcy. I am just suggesting that it get a little less pseudo.

Me personally?

I could give a rat's ass if GM and Crysler belly up completely, file Chapter 7 and disappear completely.

My fear is where are we in this current business cycle, and are we anywhere near the actual TBD future trought of this current business cycle.

Where's the bottom?

Because I'm treading in these economic waters, and looking down into the all too appearent deep and quite frankly murky waters, trying to find a toe hold, something, anything, to stand on, and for the life of me, I don't/can't see the bottom.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

If you were selling a house to somebody, and they said "I want to move in, sign the house over to me and then I will get the money to you at some undetermined time in the future (a time of my choosing)."

Would you sell them the house? Because that is the kind of deal the UAW was trying to sell the American taxpayers - "bail us out and we will cut our wages at some undetermined time in the future, after 2009 for sure, a time of our choosing - trust us".

If you were selling a house to somebody, and they said "I want to move in, sign the house over to me and then I will get the money to you at some undetermined time in the future (a time of my choosing)."

Would you sell them the house? Because that is the kind of deal the UAW was trying to sell the American taxpayers - "bail us out and we will cut our wages at some undetermined time in the future, after 2009 for sure, a time of our choosing - trust us".

You know what I find ironic?

That Republicans are asking for a definitive date for wage equlibrium.

While at the exact same time those same Republicans put off a definitive get out of Iraq date for several years.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

I mean if the UAW has already accepted a drawdown, and would continue with further future drawdowns, or the non-unionized workers have future drawups, it is only reasonable to assume that a definitive date for wage equilibrium is an indeterminate problem currently.

I think that this is a logical and sound reasoning.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

If you were selling a house to somebody, and they said "I want to move in, sign the house over to me and then I will get the money to you at some undetermined time in the future (a time of my choosing)."

Considering that's pretty much how it works (I didn't hand over a big bag of cash for my house), I don't know why this is a problem.

Quote:

Would you sell them the house? Because that is the kind of deal the UAW was trying to sell the American taxpayers - "bail us out and we will cut our wages at some undetermined time in the future, after 2009 for sure, a time of our choosing - trust us".

I would imagine that when you are negotiating with the federal gummit, you would get checked up on. Or that those details would be worked out in subsequent meetings. Or that funding would be contingent upon those agreements.

But apparently, that's not good enough.

I want to be clear about this: I don't 'give two shits about the big three. They make shitty cars and deserve to have their heads handed to them. And if this were happening, say, 3 years ago, I would be completely opposed to a bailout. Let'em go under. Sell them to Honda. I don't care. Hell, make a condition of the deal that in 2010, the big three become the property of the taxpayers.

What I want, right now, is for the GOP to stop fucking around and act like grownups. They've gotten their pound of flesh from the unions. They've gotten their political theater. But they need to realize that every thing they have touched in the last eight years has turned to shit.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Considering that's pretty much how it works (I didn't hand over a big bag of cash for my house), I don't know why this is a problem.

No, that isn't how it works. Both you and your mortgage holder get checks mailed out from the closing lawyer. The seller has no leeway on paying you when they feel like it, it has to be paid at closing, the same time the title transfers. When you bought your house, you provided two checks - one into escrow when you committed to buy the house, and a second at closing, and your mortgage company provided a third check - i.e. three big bags of cash.

Considering that's pretty much how it works (I didn't hand over a big bag of cash for my house), I don't know why this is a problem.

I would imagine that when you are negotiating with the federal gummit, you would get checked up on. Or that those details would be worked out in subsequent meetings. Or that funding would be contingent upon those agreements.

But apparently, that's not good enough.

I want to be clear about this: I don't 'give two shits about the big three. They make shitty cars and deserve to have their heads handed to them. And if this were happening, say, 3 years ago, I would be completely opposed to a bailout. Let'em go under. Sell them to Honda. I don't care. Hell, make a condition of the deal that in 2010, the big three become the property of the taxpayers.

What I want, right now, is for the GOP to stop fucking around and act like grownups. They've gotten their pound of flesh from the unions. They've gotten their political theater. But they need to realize that every thing they have touched in the last eight years has turned to shit.

Exactly!

Besides we can bicker all day long.

That won't change this one salient fact: Bush will provide a bailout bridge of some form for the Big Three before he leaves office.

Guaranteed!

Otherwise, can you all say: Welcome to the United States of Bushvilles?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!